[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6322914,"mediaKeyId","2343422-87634486d12e101492895ba56fd4fcd4","parentId",2343422,"title","Committee declines to advance tip-disclosure bill after debate over required examples and recordkeeping","audioSeconds",955,"startMs",17157000,"endMs",18112000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2343422-87634486d12e101492895ba56fd4fcd4&start=17157&end=18112","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2343422-87634486d12e101492895ba56fd4fcd4/thumbnail_17157000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6322914/New-Hampshire/Committee-declines-to-advance-tip-disclosure-bill-after-debate-over-required-examples-and-recordkeeping","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6322914-ebbf186f6fa2f62905b0363a66dffeb5/orig.mp4?Expires=1771137114&Signature=DniH-ymBA14y~RLEt-F1faJR2g9aGG8ll4Sf9JEm7ZRhptJcrR97u-Tj0dMacCOXfxKOCYqos1Xa0HjTAA84rGBguzmP2Jdwrm6HvovTuHmrCuaH0yvq1US-K14tnKY6LlBTpY46WSpPP8EV9zEHPMRswNwJ5SBtsW6ycIvqVme13S7KCHL6kWniKSJHPTK6f-mf49~rb7UmpWJzRSPp0IypBInmOgcaQaEJQYsqhgoQtpMnc9bT7gx5dJezpg2TXaYZbyVU-7xy8oOEPkeKp9NGBBE1u4YuT5MQ4OK9p7ou76RFd9KD~7TiEnM6eGfV8Q2YnS0vlQFefjSMFzS7hg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","New Hampshire Legislature","date","2025-02-18T00:00:00Z","article","The House Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services Committee on Thursday considered language that would require employers to document tip-sharing or tip-pooling practices and provide those details to employees, but committee members rejected an amendment and later voted not to advance the bill.

Representative David Cahill (sponsor) said the measure was intended to reduce confusion around tip-sharing and pooling in restaurants and hospitality businesses so servers understand how cash and credit-card gratuities are distributed. \"I was trying to make it easier for the business owner and the employee to understand exactly what situation was happening with the way they were earning money and the way they might be distributing it to their coworkers,\" Cahill said in committee.

Cahill introduced an amendment that would have required an employer to document the agreed-on tip-sharing practice and included an illustrative example: \"servers tip out a percentage of alcohol sales to bartenders and a percentage of food sales to the host, another percentage to other support staff.\" Several members said the example in statute would create more confusion than clarity.

Representative Warren said the amendment's example could be read in multiple ways and would complicate compliance for a broad range of business models. \"When you put something like this into statute, even though it's just an example, it's gonna be very difficult for establishments or restaurateurs to interpret that,\" Warren said.

Committee discussion also covered record-retention language. The sponsor initially proposed a one-year retention period for the signed agreement; committee staff and the Department of Labor flagged that current wage-compliance look-back provisions are three years, and the sponsor acknowledged he would accept a three-year retention requirement if the bill moved forward.

On committee roll calls, the amendment (which included the example language) was defeated and the subsequent motion to recommend the bill as drafted failed 9-11. The committee then voted 11-9 to recommend that the measure be treated as \"inexpedient to legislate,\" which means the committee is not forwarding the bill for further consideration.

Why this matters: Tip-sharing and tip-pooling arrangements can affect servers' take-home pay and wage-compliance enforcement. Supporters said greater transparency and a short written acknowledgment would reduce disputes; opponents said the statutory example risked producing ambiguity or unintended legal burdens for small businesses.

Votes at a glance: Amendment (0454h with example language) — failed (11 no, 9 yes on amendment roll call). Motion to recommend \"ought to pass\" — failed (9 yes, 11 no). Motion for ITL — passed (11 yes, 9 no).","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services (02/18/2025)","oneSentenceSummary","A proposal that would require employers to document and provide examples of tip-sharing or pooling practices failed to clear the House Labor committee; a narrower amendment and the bill both failed and the committee later voted to recommend ITL (inexpedient to legislate).","taxTitle","Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services, House of Representatives, Committees\t, Legislative, New Hampshire","taxId",17756,"location","New Hampshire","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6322918,"Panel rejects proposal to raise workers' compensation wage-replacement to 66—1'3% after insurer and actuary testimony",2501,3871000,6372000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2343422-87634486d12e101492895ba56fd4fcd4&start=3871&end=6372","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2343422-87634486d12e101492895ba56fd4fcd4/thumbnail_3871000.jpg","/articles/6322918/New-Hampshire/Panel-rejects-proposal-to-raise-workers-compensation-wage-replacement-to-6613-after-insurer-and-actuary-testimony","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6322918-7e10ee116a5a0953437ed31ba341b7f3/orig.mp4?Expires=1771137114&Signature=Jocr8DI-O2LUiZF4LRWrFJZJi3dkii52uIEygV1zCSdlmtqvtuuI6kas22XkjLjqnDAWMXCMhV8tXuysHrLMDfDc0yyDpRU-OKfopRwwIx3YMPReP~GLRgObW5tecpACtucI4l6tap4OnwszmpLO6bRZrszKkGYaOfyWO-TiZ7q74JuGol~9aj5pCVyKVJ3pROwoNk-B5cEOWhXId8Sb~r~Qh7lpNh~IttvMJJPKqIr9PE3TAT0kdHF1Q3S6UF2xgnHCEOvwZIPiyKp315s2QXUM~CSGtTTwIUzHRqB5-slcdETWTJq7LaaXUXcvauzfI-0QyBmhrDlgqw41BOY17g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A bill to restore New Hampshire workers' compensation indemnity benefits to 66 2/3 percent failed to win committee approval Thursday after testimony from the insurance industry and actuaries that the change would increase workers' compensation loss costs.

Representative Mark Mackenzie, sponsor of House Bill 744, told the House Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services Committee the state formerly paid that replacement rate and that an increase would restore benefits curtailed during reforms in the 1990s. \"66 and 2 thirds is to restore a benefit that we had prior to passage of ... 1993,\" Mackenzie said, arguing the market has stabilized and benefits can be partially restored.

NCCI (the National Council on Compensation Insurance) attorney Nathan Fennessy presented the insurer-side analysis. He said NCCI's modeling shows the change from 60% to 66 2/3% would raise overall workers' compensation system costs by about 5.0% to 6.3% in New Hampshire's voluntary market; when estimated self-insured costs are included the overall system increase could be roughly $17 million to $22 million.

\"The analysis was essentially that this increase from 60 to 66 and 2 thirds was approximately 9.7% in direct indemnity cost going up,\" Fennessy said, explaining how the figure feeds into a systemwide percentage once indemnity is weighted against total system costs.

Christian Citarella, chief property-and-casualty actuary at the New Hampshire Insurance Department, reviewed the NCCI analysis and said while not all carriers will adjust premium in lockstep with loss-cost changes, he would be surprised if final average premiums did not rise by an amount approaching NCCI's upper bound. \"I would be surprised if in the end the effect of this legislation would result in an overall average premium increase of that 6.3% high upper bound that was presented by NCCI,\" Citarella said, later adding he expected an increase greater than his own earlier 4% upper-bound estimate.

Committee members questioned whether higher indemnity would lengthen claim durations and whether that would change carriers' overall exposure. Fennessy said prior analyses show modest utilization increases in some indemnity categories after benefit increases. Citarella noted the insurance market has been a relatively stable sector for businesses in New Hampshire, and cautioned members that workers' compensation has been one insurance product with falling loss costs in recent years.

On a committee roll call the proposed amendment to raise the indemnity rate failed (9 yes, 11 no). The committee then voted 11-9 to recommend the bill \"inexpedient to legislate,\" effectively not advancing the measure out of committee.

Why this matters: The indemnity percentage determines how much of an injured worker's pre-injury wages are replaced while disability benefits are paid. A statutory increase would raise payouts to injured workers but carriers and employers warned that it would add to premium costs at a time when regulators say workers' comp loss costs have generally declined in New Hampshire.

Votes at a glance: Amendment to raise wage-replacement to 66 2/3% — failed (9 yes, 11 no). Motion to recommend ITL (inexpedient to legislate) — passed (11 yes, 9 no).","Committee debate over restoring the indemnity replacement rate to 66 2/3 percent prompted actuarial testimony estimating a 5'6.3% rise in system loss costs; an amendment to raise the rate failed and the committee later recommended against advancing the bill.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6322924,"Committee approves amendment raising top weekly UI benefit but votes against advancing bill",3293,256000,3549000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2343422-87634486d12e101492895ba56fd4fcd4&start=256&end=3549","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2343422-87634486d12e101492895ba56fd4fcd4/thumbnail_256000.jpg","/articles/6322924/New-Hampshire/Committee-approves-amendment-raising-top-weekly-UI-benefit-but-votes-against-advancing-bill","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6322924-955781d78a07b67d0ce1f7a01ce27c13/orig.mp4?Expires=1771137114&Signature=S1GtA831qAd4fRhGneN2pvNIKaxEHrZqLdYqlAmrd2VK8BVO-TvRXkwGIsqbFDbFSs2KTZQYp5l1QcoaFpGWch~wBZCrD~cGS2FlnOCwAPQT5b6FIB-1RMkxgVThKN9AY7OU1TyfUeWqfG1czahnySeKqJMys5y3-t4RKMycGi0bxY7Jh-J5peFATSlRZEy-u74sUi23UM18jvoDuUdTBUlgSb9ea6kWOEK51p4htqG86D0SCpH8oepZ5Xr8L6lXhZMjtUoItWAMEOkbeNnP-Mbn8oi2T74Mmim6-ELjQJSjJ4aFESMsJK1e~aNSCfc09jdN-QNkD-uLxr6by2xcCA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A House Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services Committee on Thursday approved an amendment to House Bill 542 that would increase the state's maximum weekly unemployment benefit to $535, but later voted not to advance the bill.

The amendment, introduced by Representative Mark McKenzie (Hillsborough District 40), reduces the number of new benefit tiers proposed in the original bill and raises the top of the benefit schedule from $427 to $535 a week for workers with higher base-period earnings.

The change, McKenzie said in committee testimony, \"takes back 6 of the 12 steps that were proposed\" in the original draft and is designed to \"strike a balance\" between improving wage replacement for higher earners and preserving the solvency of the unemployment trust fund. He told committee members the amendment keeps the system from having to borrow from the federal government even under modeled recessionary stress scenarios.

Richard Lavers, deputy commissioner at New Hampshire Employment Security, presented the department's updated analysis for the amendment. He said the amended schedule would preserve the same wage-replacement ratio at the new top tier and estimated that, under current economic conditions, the amendment would not immediately affect the automatic employer tax rate reductions linked to the trust fund balance. Lavers told the committee the department's stress tests showed the fund would not need to borrow under a modeled major recession, but that in recessionary scenarios the amendment could cause employers to lose a forecasted fund balance reduction earlier than without the change and could increase employer tax collections in a quarter by roughly $22.9 million.

\"This proposal's amended maximum weekly benefit would be $535 a week for someone that had earned at least $52,000 in their 4-quarter base period compared to the current maximum of $427,\" Lavers said, adding that the department updated its projections to show how the change would affect both filers and employer tax triggers.

Committee members questioned how the change would affect duration of claims and employer rates. Lavers replied that the proposal increases benefit amounts but does not change the number of weeks beneficiaries may claim; he noted New Hampshire's average duration is about 12 weeks and that the state's exhaustion rate is low compared with other states.

Despite the committee's approval of the amendment, the panel later rejected a motion to recommend the bill \"ought to pass as amended.\" The final committee action was an 11-9 vote for \"inexpedient to legislate,\" effectively recommending the measure not move forward from the committee.

Why this matters: The amendment was aimed at narrowing a long-standing gap in wage replacement between lower- and higher-paid workers who file unemployment claims. Supporters said the increase would better stabilize families after layoffs; opponents raised concerns about the potential downstream effect on employer tax rates in stress scenarios.

Votes at a glance: Amendment (0252h) — passed on committee roll call (19 yes, 1 no). Motion to recommend \"ought to pass as amended\" — failed (9 yes, 11 no). Motion to recommend \"inexpedient to legislate\" (ITL) — passed (11 yes, 9 no).","A House labor committee approved an amendment to House Bill 542 that would raise New Hampshire's maximum weekly unemployment benefit to $535, but the committee ultimately voted not to advance the bill, sending it on an 'inexpedient to legislate' recommendation.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee declines to advance tip-disclosure bill after debate over required examples and recordkeeping

Panel rejects proposal to raise workers' compensation wage-replacement to 66—1'3% after insurer and actuary testimony

Committee approves amendment raising top weekly UI benefit but votes against advancing bill